[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Jingle Encrypted Transports
stpeter at stpeter.im
Thu Aug 31 13:37:05 UTC 2017
On 8/31/17 1:59 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On 30 August 2017 at 21:32, Daniel Gultsch <daniel at gultsch.de> wrote:
>> 2017-08-30 22:10 GMT+02:00 Paul Schaub <vanitasvitae at riseup.net>:
>>> First things first: My intention for submitting JET to the XSF inbox was
>>> to get some comments and first feedback in order to discover caveats and
>>> pitfalls in the protocol.
>>> By no means I'd consider JET ready to be implemented or accepted :D
>> OK. Fair enough. I think what people usually do at this stage is
>> render the XEP themselves, put it up somewhere and show it around to
>> get some feedback. That way you don't trigger council action and it is
>> way easier to make changes because you don't have to go through the
> This is getting a bit meta, but the reason I really dislike that is
> that you're asking people to work on protocol stuff outside the IPR
> policy of the XSF. This exposes people implementing, or discussing, to
> all sorts of legal shenanigans that are somewhat mitigated by the
> copyright assignment in submission.
> If there's something preventing this, we really need to fix it.
There is: the Council blocking publication of XEPs. Publish the thing,
get it into XSF processes, and work on the spec in the right way. Ship
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Standards